smac97 Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 From the Tribune: Quote Arizona case shows why Mormon bishops are not reporting sex abuse to police every time. That has a prosecutor complaining about the church’s lawyers. By Nate Carlisle This is an odd title. I'm usually not a grammar freak, but c'mon, Trib! If you want to read the article, I recommend you read it through, then read the documents referenced in it, then re-read the article again. It'll make more sense that way. Here are the links to the documents: Bar Complaint Letter Exhibits to Bar Complaint Letter Response from LDS Church Attorney I also recommend that you read the relevant statute regarding mandatory reporting of child abuse: A.R.S. sec. 13-03620. Here's the relevant bits (emphases added): Quote Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental means or that is not explained by the available medical history as being accidental in nature ... shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer. ... A member of the clergy, [] who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy [] in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy [] belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy [] determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy [] may otherwise make of the minor. For the purposes of this subsection, "person" means: ... 2. Any peace officer, child welfare investigator, child safety worker, member of the clergy, priest or Christian Science practitioner. I haven't read any case law about how this statute is interpreted, but it appears that the exemption from reporting (bolded/italicized) would not apply if a bishop received a report of abuse from the victim. The bishop's letter (see here, Exhibit 1) potentially establishes that the teen disclosed the abuse to Bishop Gremlich. However, it may also be that the perpetrator of the abuse (the teen's father, which detail was not redacted from the bishop's letter) confessed to the bishop, and if so that could implicate the exemption. The bishop told investigators that he had previously spoken with the purported perpetrator (see here, Exhibit 2), so we're in a bit of a gray area here. Back to the article: Quote An Arizona prosecutor, who says a lawyer for the LDS Church told a bishop he didn’t need to inform police that a child was being sexually abused, has filed a bar complaint against that attorney and his law firm. An indictment against the child’s parents suggests the abuse went on for a decade. The Mormon bishop in Kingman may face a criminal charge, too, for not notifying police, though Arizona law doesn’t always require clergy to report abuse and, documents say, the bishop encouraged the now-teenager to speak to law enforcement. That first paragraph makes sense. But the second is a mess. "The Mormon bishop in Kingman?" Who is that? We don't find out until later in the article. Quote Meanwhile, both a prosecutor and a victims’ advocate in northwest Arizona are expressing concern about the advice the LDS Church’s law firm, Salt Lake City-based Kirton McConkie, is giving to the faith’s lay leaders. “Religion was used against this young person for years,” said James Schoppmann, chief deputy of the Mohave County attorney’s office. “What I mean by that is, [the teen] believed people knew and were doing something about it.” "Religion was used against this young person?" What does this mean? "[The teen] believed people knew?" But a letter from the bishop in Kingman (Randall Gremlich) to the teen (which the journalist doesn't even mention until much further on in the article) specifically states that the bishop would be honoring the teen's request for confidentiality. What on earth is going on at the Trib? Providing a coherent factual narrative is not rocket science. Quote Schoppmann sent a letter dated May 18 to the State Bar of Arizona, which regulates attorneys there, complaining that Kirton McConkie lawyer Joseph Osmond had given legal advice in the Grand Canyon State even though he has no license to practice there. Schoppmann’s complaint says “perhaps others” from Kirton McConkie “are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law” in Arizona. The complaint also discusses Lance Wickman, now an emeritus LDS general authority and the church’s general counsel. Schoppmann accuses Wickman, who is a licensed attorney in Utah but not Arizona, of knowing about Osmond and others practicing in the Grand Canyon State without a license. So Schoppmann's letter appears to be predicated on a discussion he says he had with BIshop Gremlich in January 2018. Again, this is not addressed until later in the article, but you can read a report of that discussion here (Exhibit 2). During this discussion, which involved Schoppman (deputy county attorney for Mohave County, and also a member of the Church), Matt Smith (county attorney) and Steve Auld (investigator for the county attorney's office), it appears Bishop Gremlich references two letters, both of them purportedly written by a Kirton McConkie attorney, Joseph Osmond, but which Bishop Gremlich put on the ward letterhead. One of these letters is included as an exhibit to Schoppmann's letter (see here, Exhibit 1). In this letter, Bishop Gremlich encourages the teenage victim and his mother to tell a professional counselor or law enforcement what happened, and also indicates that the Bishop would be willing to report the incident on the teen's behalf. However, the letter also indicates that the teen told Bishop Gremlich that he (the teen) did not want counseling or to report this matter to law enforcement. Bishop Gremlich advises him again to report this matter, but that he (Bishop Gremlich) would abide by the teen's request for confidentiality. So this seems pretty straight-forward. However, Schoppman also alleges that Bishop Gremlich reported that Joseph Osmond provided the text for another letter, the text of which was purportedly written by Osmond and which Bishop Gremlich then purportedly put on the ward letterhead, which stated that neither the mother or child wanted Bishop Gremlich to report the matter to law enforcement. Schoppman alleges that Bishop Gremlich had the mother and teen sign both letters, and that copies were sent to Osmond. The Church's attorney in Arizona, Bill Maledon, disputes that Bishop Gremlich asked the teen and the teen's mother to sign letters indicating that they did not want the abuse information to be reported, and also states that BIshop Gremlich has denied this. So we have a copy of the one letter, but not the other. And the letter we do have presupposes no duty to report (since Bishop Gremlich states he would not do so, at the request of the teen and the mother). Schoppmann's "unauthorized practice of law" thing is a bit odd. An unlicensed attorney can usually do legal work as long as he/she is directly supervised by a licensed attorney (see here). I suspect Bill Maledon supervises communications involving Kirton McConkie attorneys for matters in Arizona. Back to the article: Quote Schoppmann holds a teaching position in his Mormon stake. He said he was serving in that capacity one day when the teen told him about the abuse. Schoppmann said he began calling police detectives he knew. The teen also told Schoppmann LDS leaders knew of the abuse and were addressing it. The prosecutor said he didn’t understand at the time how Mormon clergy could know about the abuse and yet police be unaware of it. Schoppmann wants LDS leaders to report child abuse every time. He also wants the church to stop sending attorneys to states in which they have no law licenses and to cease giving advice on those states’ laws. What Schoppmann "wants" seems a bit odd. Surely he understands that the statute has exemptions. Surely he understands the implications of the priest/penitent privilege. Anyway, an interesting story. -Smac
rpn Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Actually the title is misleading --- the bar complaint has nothing to do with sexual abuse reporting. It is a complaint about unauthorized practice of law for giving a training seminar in AZ when they aren't licensed there. Fact is that hundreds of attorneys give seminars outside on various topics outside their licensing jurisdictions.
Marginal Gains Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) I don’t think the confidentiality of the priest/penitent privilege applies when the Church is being sued...see Denson vs Bishop Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains
smac97 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Posted June 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: I don’t think the confidentiality of the priest/penitent privilege applies when the Church is being sued...see Denson vs Bishop Are you just being cynical here, or do you have an actual point to make? Thanks, -Smac 1
Marginal Gains Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Are you just being cynical here, or do you have an actual point to make? Thanks, -Smac I’m pretty sure I made it, let me check... ...yep, all good.
smac97 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Posted June 1, 2018 9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: I’m pretty sure I made it, let me check... ...yep, all good. Nope. Don't see it. "I don’t think the confidentiality of the priest/penitent privilege applies when the Church is being sued?" Could you explain what you mean here? Thanks, -Smac
Marginal Gains Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Nope. Don't see it. "I don’t think the confidentiality of the priest/penitent privilege applies when the Church is being sued?" Could you explain what you mean here? Thanks, -Smac Certainly. When the Church is being sued...(with me so far?)...it will break the priest/penitent privilege...(still with me?)...in an effort to not be sued or to reduce a settlement (see Denson vs Bishop). That the Church didn’t honour the spirit priest/penitent privilege in that case, removes its right to hide behind it in other cases. At least morally. But I’m sure you got all that from my first post. Now stand by folks for a line-by-line dissection of this post followed by a “Tada!” (Let me know how it goes).
smac97 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Posted June 1, 2018 23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Certainly. When the Church is being sued...(with me so far?)... Yep, I'm with ya. 23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: it will break the priest/penitent privilege...(still with me?)... Nope. CFR, please. 23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: in an effort to not be sued or to reduce a settlement (see Denson vs Bishop). Don't see it. What part of the Denson matter involved a breach of the priest/penitent privilege? 23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: That the Church didn’t honour the spirit priest/penitent privilege in that case, CFR, please. 23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: removes its right to hide behind it in other cases. No, it doesn't. That's not how the law works. 23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: At least morally. Nope, not there either. 23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: But I’m sure you got all that from my first post. No, I didn't. I'm genuinely not understanding your allusions to the Denson matter as evidencing a breach of the priest/penitent privilege. 23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Now stand by folks for a line-by-line dissection of this post followed by a “Tada!” (Let me know how it goes). Tada! Thanks, -Smac 2
JAHS Posted June 1, 2018 Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said: <Sigh> I retract absolutely everything. Does that include all future posts also? 😉
smac97 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Posted June 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: <Sigh> I retract absolutely everything. I was not looking for this. I just wanted to know what you were referencing re: priest/penitent privilege in the Denson matter. I have heavily scrutinized that case, and I do not know what you are talking about. Thanks, -Smac 1
Recommended Posts